I know there’s a lot of talk about hard cases and how we shouldn’t have to hear from these people and all that, but surely it must give you pause to hear how badly thought out insertions to the Constitution can create such havoc for people?

The only reason the Love Boats don’t want anyone to talk about the hard cases is because they have no answer to them and realise that normal human people with feelings will empathise with the hard cases and lean towards Repeal.

In criminal cases the standard for a conviction is ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ – with the idea that it is ‘better’ for 20 guilty offenders to go free than for one innocent person to be jailed.

The Constitutional Convention looked at the hard cases – FFE, Serious harm to the mother’s health, rape
– and we have the current government proposal – remove the 8th and there is draft text. One problem with the proposal is that to solve the ‘hard’ cases it opens the door to ‘soft’ cases – abortion on demand for any reason.

People now seem to be either in one of two camps – where their own moral compass has decided where they separate ‘hard’ from ‘soft’…

it is ‘better’ for 20 ‘soft’ abortions to happen than for one ‘hard’ abortion be refused.
it is ‘better’ for 20 ‘hard’ abortions to be refused than for one ‘soft’ abortion happen.

Your choice is based on the assumption that the 8th amendment is well thought out. It is not. We have doctors publicly arguing as to its meaning which does not inspire confidence in the continuity of care provided.

Irrespective of what comes afterwards, if a woman’s treatment is in any way dependent on a consultant’s legal interpretation, then it is not fit for purpose